jools posted:so is that zizek sniping himself by his own petard or something
using the word "sniping" in a snipe... this is of great merit.
sosie posted:
i was talking to jools about that last night and i'm still puzzled if immanent critique (or maybe deconstruction) is something you can just apply to a system of thought or whether it implies some larger, grounded system of thought.
like, say you're zizek, if you took heidegger's system and ruthlessly critiqued it, would it necessarily just collapse into your own viewpoint, if you were correct. i guess for a long time i just assumed it was just a matter of language games, like, you would be correct within a certain context, but that systems of thought were not necessarily commensurable and that they could sort of be correct in isolation given certain assumptions. but i dunno if there is some overarching system of thought that situates all those within a field that can be pinned down as like ultimate truth or something. basically i'm curious if there is more to kant than i used to think. like are there things that people would have to agree on due to reason.
the main reason i didn't think kant was worth thinking much about is that it seemed trivially true that moral standards are relative. like if it were always true that some form of socialist egalitarianism was correct, then it seems like it's hard to explain why that didn't prevail for much of the past centuries. and the obvious solution was to put it into historical context and say that our capacity to be "moral" by contemporary communist standards is related to the rise in output which makes economic pettiness and hierarchy less justified, along with the standard arguments about the rise of the proletariat.
the thing is i guess that gets into those weird metaphysics debates around wittgenstein and russell. or maybe that book by zupancic about kant & lacan that you liked. i should probably read that as my way into it. i've had a sort of mental list of books i wanted to get through (althusser, freud, lacan, etc.) before i got to work that builds on it though. i should just jump in i guess.
getfiscal posted:sosie posted:
Some time after the infantile sexual researches have come to an end, the intelligence, having grown stronger, recalls the old association and offers its help in evading sexual repression, and the suppressed sexual activities of research return from the unconscious in the form of compulsive brooding, naturally in a distorted and unfree form, but sufficiently powerful to sexualize thinking itself and to colour intellectual operations with the pleasure and anxiety that belong to sexual processes proper. Here investigation becomes a sexual activity, often the exclusive one, and the feeling that comes from settling things in one's mind and explaining them replaces sexual satisfaction; but the interminable character of the child's researches is also repeated in the fact that this brooding never ends and that the intellectual feeling, so much desired, of having found a solution recedes more and more into the distance.
Nuff said.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:i also had facebook 2 months ago, goon sire
sosie posted:
it'd be nice if we had a normal conversation lol
1. try to emphasize more "direct" physical pleasures instead of always crawling into pseudo-debates.
2. try to reorient towards concrete problems with specific outcomes so i don't just spin my wheels for years.
3. embrace it and go with it and see where it takes me.
sosie posted:i dont know how sorry. i love you.
❤
getfiscal posted:1. try to emphasize more "direct" physical pleasures instead of always crawling into pseudo-debates.
that's what phenomenology is all about. reattaching the severed body to the severed head. post-cartesian dualism you have to learn to be "irrational" again. to love your body.
NoFreeWill posted:getfiscal posted:1. try to emphasize more "direct" physical pleasures instead of always crawling into pseudo-debates.
that's what phenomenology is all about. reattaching the severed body to the severed head. post-cartesian dualism you have to learn to be "irrational" again. to love your body.
hurf de durf, phenomenology is some sort of existential philosophy and that's how I see the world. *ignores the original phenomenology by a faggot german idealist*
jools posted:hating owns
Lykourgos posted:what are some modern political theorists/moralists that need to be shit on, and have a recognisable text to refute? Singer is an obvious one that comes to mind.
the harvard law review
sosie posted:Indeed, the only open question here seems to be where, precisely, we should
locate Heidegger on the spectrum delineated by the two extremes of committed
Nazism and political naïveté: was Heidegger (as Emmanuel Faye claims) a fully
fledged Nazi, did he directly “introduce Nazism into philosophy,” or was he simply
politically naïve, becoming caught up in a political game with no direct links to his
thought? I propose to follow a different line: neither to assert a direct link
between Heidegger’s thought and Nazism, nor to emphasize the gap that divides
them (that is, to sacrifice Heidegger as a naïve or corrupt person in order to save
the purity of his thought), but to transpose this gap into the heart of his thought
itself, to demonstrate how the space for the Nazi engagement was opened up by
the immanent failure or inconsistency of his thought, by the jumps and passages
which are “illegitimate” in terms of this thought itself. In any serious philosophical
analysis, external critique has to be grounded in immanent critique: hence we
must show how Heidegger’s external failure (his Nazi involvement) reflects the fact
that he fell short as measured by his own aims and standards.
lol
wasted posted:hurf de durf, phenomenology is some sort of existential philosophy and that's how I see the world. *ignores the original phenomenology by a faggot german idealist*
i haven't read husserl yet but later phenomenologists critique him a bunch re: faggot idealism.
Judge: Sustained, that bro hella weak and can't hold his liquor. Bailiff escort the defendant to the kid's Gap where he can return his awful jeans <<bangs gavel and grinds down side of witness stand, doing 720 ollie into a mid air high five>>
